Essential facts of the case:
• Lani Rufino both died
• Four children:
X, Y, Arturo, and Bugoy
• They sold (1/2) property to Honorato
• Arturo's children
- Ildefonso
-bienvenito
The both (pamangkin) occupied the remaining quarters (1/4)
• Then the remaining (1/4) sold by Bugoy to spouses Cruz
Issue:
The main issue here is whether or not the case filed by Bienvenito prosper? - He filed a complaint for quieting of tittle and annulment of deed of absolute sale on the ground that the sale made by His uncle, Bugoy to Spouses Cruz is null and void.
Otherwise stated, is the sale made by one co-owner (without the consent of other co-owners) involving the co-owned property entirely void?
Suggested Answer
ARTICLE 494.No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned[.]"
In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the whole property.
Each co-owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.
As described under Article 484 of the Civil Code, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Articles 485, 486 and 493 of the same Code state the basic rights of each co-owner, to wit:
ART. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
ART. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.
x x x x
ART. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership[.]"
The foregoing provisions confirm the co-owners to have a pro indiviso, pro rata, pari passu right in the co-ownership. In other words, a co-owner's right is proportional to his or her share or interest in the undivided co-owned property that is on equal footing with the other co-owners.
Under Article 1078 of the Civil Code,
"[w]here there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased." As explained by a noted civilist, from the moment of the *death of the decedent, and pending actual partition of the estate, the heirs become co-owners of such estate, each one having an undivided interest in the property to the extent of his or her share therein.
Note:
*ARTICLE 777.The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
NOTE RELATED CASE |
This is clear that the sale made by Bugoy to the spouses of Cruz is "not entirely void" under Article 493 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court held that when one of the co-owners, in this case, Bugoy, sells or alienates the property owned in common, he only sells his undivided share and should not affect the other co-owners. In effect, spouses Cruz merely stopped in the shoes of Bugoy, as far as his share is concerned. The Supreme Court held in this way:
"Our reading of Article 493 as applied to the facts of this case is a reiteration of what was pronounced in Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals.12 The rights of a co-owner of a certain property are clearly specified in Article 493 of the Civil Code. Thus:
'Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it[,] and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or [the] mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.'
As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common.
Consequently, by virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid with respect to their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in the sale to private respondent Celestino Afable, the said Afable thereby became a co- owner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court since the sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment thereof.
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co- owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
Nearer to the dispute at hand are the pronouncements in the 1944 case of Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong. Citing Manresa on Article 399 which is the present Article 493 of the Civil Code, the Court said:
x x x Article 399 shows the essential integrity of the right of each co-owner in the mental portion which belongs to him in the ownership or community.
x x x x
To be a co-owner of a property does not mean that one is deprived of every recognition of the disposal of the thing, of the free use of his right within the circumstantial conditions of such judicial status, nor is it necessary, for the use and enjoyment, or the right of free disposal, that the previous consent of all the interested parties be obtained."
Comments